On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:40 AM, James Y Knight wrote: > The next step here is clearly for someone to redraft the changes as a diff > against PEP 333. If you do not have any interest in being that person, please > make that clear, so someone else can step up to do so.
Okay, not sensing any other volunteers here...I guess it's all me. The intention of this spec update is to be compatible with existing middleware/applications when running on Python 2.X. Apps/middleware running on python 3.X require changes in any case, and this specification will tell them exactly what to expect. That Python 3.X middleware and WSGI adapters will have to deal with both bytestrings and unicode strings in many parts of the API (output status code, output headers, output response iterable/write callback) will add some complexity, but that's life. Any WSGI implementations on Python 3.X claiming compliance to WSGI 1.0 are most likely broken, and its behavior cannot be relied upon. Too bad about wsgiref. As self-appointed author, I am going to take a stand and say that both the python3-related string-type specifications, and the additional requirements except #3 (read() with no-args) and #4 (file_wrapper looking at Content-Length), will be included. And it will be called WSGI 1.1. Back to the list of "extra requirements": #1: (readline with an arg) must be included, despite the potential for breakage. That ship has already sailed, the breakage has already occurred, it's already required. Disagreement here really is of no consequence. #2: (wsgi.input() must return EOF at EOF): I do not believe will break any middleware. It will require some changes in some WSGI adapter implementations, but that's acceptable. If you have a real-life example of middleware that would break here, show it. So this will be included. #3 is not actually required for anything; at best it's an extra convenience; repeatedly reading until EOF will work just as well. Furthermore, the API change has the potential to break some middleware in Python 2.X, so I'll take the safe road and not make the change. The purpose behind #4 is essentially included in #6, and so is not needed as a separate requirement. #5 and #6 are uncontroversial and of no impact to an already-correct implementation. They will be included. I'll send a diff of the actual wording changes once I've written it. James _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
